Sharon Shoesmith - “The Scapegoat”

Philip Henson, Partner, and employment law expert in the City of London law firm Bargate Murray (www.bargatemurray.com)discusses Sharon Shoesmith’s recent victory in the Court of Appeal (UK) and opines that a negotiated settlement could be the best way forward.

Sharon Shoesmith, Former Haringey Council Children's Boss, has won her Court of Appeal Case, against her controversial sacking (live on TV by former Minister Ed Balls) following the tragic death of Baby P.

The Court of Appeal has held that Ms Shoesmith was "entitled to be treated lawfully and fairly and not simply and summarily scapegoated".

Media coverage

My comments on the Shoesmith case have already been picked up by The Financial Times; The Guardian; The Independent newspaper, Sky News, the Daily Telegraph, and The Times.

How can Bargate Murray help you, and your business?

Our employment team provide professional advice in all areas of employment law from day to day HR Advice; Employment Tribunal/Employment Appeal Tribunal advice; and high court injunctions.

We welcome your comments on this update, and look forward to hearing from you.

E: philip@bargatemurray.com

T: +44 (0)20 7375 1393

W: www.bargatemurray.com

Blog: www.employmentlawupdate.wordpress.com

Twitter: PHBARGATEMURRAY

Disclaimer

This document is strictly for information purposes only. The information and opinion expressed in this document does not constitute legal or other advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for legal advice. The content of this document is not to be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission of the author.

Bargate Murray Solicitors 5th Floor T. +44 (0)20 7375 1393 F. +44 (0)20 7392 9529 Bargate Murray is Regulated by the Solicitors 20-22 Curtain Road London EC2A 3NF E. info@bargatemurray.com bargatemurray.com Regulation Authority with SRA number 402555 The Partners in Bargate Murray are Quentin Bargate, Andrew Murray and Philip Henson. BARGATE MURRAY -EMPLOYMENT LAW CASE REVIEW Philip Henson, Partner, and employment law expert in the City of London law firm Bargate Murray discusses Sharon Shoesmith’s recent victory in the Court of Appeal and opines that a negotiated settlement could be the best way forward. ________________________________________________________________________________ Sharon Shoesmith -“The Scapegoat” Sharon Shoesmith, Former Haringey Council Children's Boss, has won her Court of Appeal Case, against her controversial sacking (live on TV by former Minister Ed Balls) following the tragic death of Baby P. The Court of Appeal has held that Ms Shoesmith was "entitled to be treated lawfully and fairly and not simply and summarily scapegoated". Background For international readers unfamiliar with the tragic case of Peter Connolly – referred to as “Baby P” – he died on 3 August 2007 when he was only 17 months old. For some months he had been the subject of a child protection plan devised by Haringey Council and was accordingly on the child protection register because of concerns about neglect and abuse. Following his death, Tracey Connolly (his mother), Steven Barker (her boyfriend) and Jason Owen (Barker’s brother) were charged with a number of offences. They were tried in the Central Criminal Court, London. The trial ended on 11 November 2008. Although they were acquitted of murder and manslaughter, they were convicted of causing or allowing Peter’s death contrary to section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. A public and media outcry followed the convictions, much of which was directed at Haringey, and Sharon Shoesmith. On 12 November 2008, the day after the conclusion of the criminal trial, the Secretary of State, then the Rt Hon Mr Ed Balls MP, requested the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED), together with the Healthcare Commission and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, to produce an urgent report into child safeguarding arrangements within Haringey. His request was made pursuant to section 20 of the 2004 Act. OFSTED produced a final draft of its report on the evening of 30 November. In accordance with OFSTED practice, it did not name individuals but it was very critical and it identified a number of serious concerns. 2 On the morning of 1 December 2008, leading members of the OFSTED team had a meeting with the Secretary of State. Within hours, the Secretary of State made a direction pursuant to section 497A (4B) of the Education Act 1996 appointing Mr John Coughlan (seconded from another local authority) as DCS in Haringey until 31 December 2008. Press conference – 1 December 2008 The Secretary of State held a press conference on the afternoon of 1 December 2008 at which he said that, as Ms Shoesmith was employed by Haringey, it would be considering the employment relationship (as opposed to the statutory position of DCS from which he had removed her) “this afternoon and immediately”. He made it clear that his view was that Ms Shoesmith “should not be rewarded with compensation or pay offs” but that “that’s a matter for Haringey”. There was also reference to a petition (with over a million signatures) which had been organised by The Sun newspaper in the aftermath of the criminal trial and which had called for the sacking of Ms Shoesmith and others. Application for Judicial Review On 6 March 2009, Ms Shoesmith issued an application for permission to apply for judicial review against OFSTED, the Secretary of State and Haringey. In a nutshell, her case is that the OFSTED report was prepared without compliance with relevant procedural arrangements and/or in breach of common law requirements of fairness; that the Secretary of State’s directions under section 497A (4B) were unlawful because of a failure to observe the requirements of procedural fairness and because he impermissibly had regard to The Sun’s petition; and that her dismissal by Haringey was unlawful because it was founded on the unlawful directions of the Secretary of State and/or it, too, was procedurally unfair. At the same time, Ms Shoesmith commenced proceedings in the Employment Tribunal but these are currently stayed pending resolution of the judicial review proceedings. High Court Following six days of oral argument and later written submissions, the Judge (Foskett J) dismissed all of Ms Shoesmith’s applications. He did so with “a lurking sense of unease”. Ms Shoesmith appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the Judgment was released on 27 May 2011; click here for a copy. Court of Appeal Lord Justice Maurice Kay (Vice President of the Court of Appeal) held: It follows from what I have said that I would dismiss the appeal in relation to OFSTED but allow the appeals in relation to the Secretary of State and Haringey, making declarations as indicated in paragraphs 129 (Secretary of State) and 131 (Haringey). I would remit the case to the Administrative Court for consideration of further relief but impose a stay for 6 weeks to enable negotiation and, if necessary, mediation to take place. 3 Lord Justice Maurice Kay also commented (para 135): Those involved in areas such as social work and healthcare are particularly vulnerable to such treatment. This is not to say that I consider Ms Shoesmith to be blameless or that I have a view as to the extent of her or anyone else's blameworthiness. That is not the business of this Court. However, it is our task to adjudicate upon the application and fairness of procedures adopted by public authorities when legitimate causes for concern arise, as they plainly did in this case. Whatever her shortcomings may have been (and, I repeat, I cannot say), she was entitled to be treated lawfully and fairly and not simply and summarily scapegoated. Philip Henson, Employment Law expert at Bargate Murray comments as follows: I am sure that Mr Balls will now realise that firing Ms Shoesmith live at a televised press conference back in 2008 was not such an erudite idea after all. Ms Shoesmith’s case has a wider lesson for all employers of the need to make sure that they carry out a fair investigation and procedure, affording staff the opportunity to put their case forward, rather than pandering to public and media pressure and making a knee jerk decision to fire members of staff. Although the Court of Appeal Judges did not make a ruling on compensation, instead referring the case back to the High Court for “further consideration”, Ms Shoesmith is likely to receive compensation approaching, or hitting, the £1million mark taking into consideration reinstatement of her pension rights. The Government have announced that they intend to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. My personal view is that the Government may want to try and reach a negotiated settlement, before Ms Shoesmiths case goes back to the High Court, especially in view of the likely legal costs involved. -a view that seems to be shared by the Court of Appeal who have imposed a 6 week stay, and have suggested mediation. Although I think it is incredibly unlikely that Mr Balls will ever apologise for the thoughtless way that he sacked Ms Shoesmith live on TV; if Mr Balls did apologise then it may help to put an end to this lengthy, and expensive, litigation Media coverage My comments on the Shoesmith case have already been picked up by The Financial Times; The Guardian; The Independent newspaper, Sky News, the Daily Telegraph, and The Times. Philip Henson, Partner and Head of Employment Law at Bargate Murray solicitors (London, UK) How can Bargate Murray help you and your business? 4 Our employment team provide professional advice in all areas of employment law from day to day HR Advice; Employment Tribunal/Employment Appeal Tribunal advice; and high court injunctions. Our areas of expertise @Bargate Murray include: Arbitration – Commercial -Corporate – Employment – Litigation (including complex cross border litigation) – Mediation – Shipping – Superyachts We welcome your comments on this update, and look forward to hearing from you. E: philip@bargatemurray.com T: +44 (0)20 7375 1393 W: www.bargatemurray.com Blog: www.employmentlawupdate.wordpress.com Twitter: PHBARGATEMURRAY Disclaimer This document is strictly for information purposes only. The information and opinion expressed in this document does not constitute legal or other advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for legal advice. The content of this document is not to be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission of the author.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

- hide

Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.